At a time when the US Supreme Court recently overturned the abortion rights that were in force for over half a century, and there are more than 60 countries where there is a total ban on abortions, except in extreme medical circumstances, or some social problems, India’s Supreme Court has given blanket rights to terminate a pregnancy to all married and unmarried women. This has raised concerns among social and human rights groups. Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, India’s premier Muslim organization, has opposed the top court’s ruling, saying aborting the foetuses amount to the killing of life, and the law allowing abortion must be re-examined and overturned.
Syed Khalique Ahmed
NEW DELHI—Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, a prominent socio-religious organization of Indian Muslims, has vehemently opposed the Supreme Court ruling that has given blanket legal abortion rights to all married and unmarried women to 24 weeks into pregnancy.
The verdict was given by a three-judge bench of India’s apex court on September 29. The judges on the bench comprised Justices D Y Chandrachud, AS Bopanna, and JS Pardiwala.
Addressing media persons at its headquarters here on Saturday, JIH vice-president Prof. Mohammed Salim Engineer and JIH (women’s wing) secretary Rahmathunnisa A. appealed to the court to review its ruling because they felt that the court’s ruling would “increase exploitation of women as men will no longer fear the consequences of their actions.”
Earlier, the abortion laws in India were stringent and allowed medical termination of pregnancy on medical grounds only. It did not let even sex determination tests because Indians strongly prefer males who went for abortion of female foetuses through illegal means. And often, women undergoing abortions lose their lives if the doctors are not adequately trained and the hospital does not have the proper equipment.
But, the Narendra Modi government amended the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (MTP) in 2021, allowing abortion rights to several categories of women, including minors, rape survivors, women with mental disabilities, women having foetuses with disabilities, and married women whose marital status had changed during pregnancy. However, the amendment did not allow abortion rights to other categories of women.
The Supreme Court pronounced the verdict on a petition filed by an unmarried woman who got pregnant during a consensual relationship and wanted abortion of her foetus after the relationship failed.
The top court said there should be no distinction between married and unmarried women, and it must include unmarried women in a consensual relationship as far as abortion rights are concerned. However, in the same verdict, the court also ruled that women should have “reproductive autonomy”, and the consent of the husband or any other family member was not required.
But the two JIH leaders objected to the court ruling and said that the issue pertained to the life at the stage of a foetus who was not in a position to defend their rights, and abortion of the foetus amounted to killing. Therefore, they argued that the court should have considered a foetus’s right to pronounce the verdict in such a sensitive case.
Responding to media questions, they said that the right to abortion could not be linked with public demand. “Will people decide whether a foetus should come into the world or not?” they asked, adding, “every life must be protected.”
“Abortion is unethical, immoral, and illegal,” they emphasised.
Stating that a foetus has to be regarded as an unborn human being, the JIH leaders said, “since a foetus or an unborn child cannot defend its rights, it does not mean that we can dispense them at will merely for reasons of convenience.” According to JIH leaders, this amounted to murder, and hence, abortion, except in extreme medical cases, should not be allowed. Furthermore, they said that a blanket legal right to abortion would increase atrocities on women.
According to medical research, the external male and female genitalia fully develop in the foetuses between 16 and 20 weeks of pregnancy. Therefore, whether a foetus is male or female can easily be determined with the help of advanced sonography and amniocentesis tests.
Since the court has allowed abortion of foetuses up to 24 weeks of pregnancy, the sex of the foetuses can be easily determined. Although there is a strong preference for a male child in Indian society, irrespective of people’s faith, those not wanting a female child can have an abortion if the foetus is found to be female. And this sex preference is not only among men but also among Indian women. As the Supreme Court ruling says that the pregnant woman could go for an abortion without the consent of her husband or family members, it would make the abortion relatively easy.
As the male-female sex ratio in India is already skewed and biased in favour of men, the legal right to abortion will likely reduce the number of girls at birth. According to Pew research, the sex ratio at birth is currently 110 boys per 100 girls among Hindus and Sikhs, 106 boys per 100 girls among Christians and 105 boys per 100 girls among Muslims. Pew Research has quoted the figures from the latest NFHS report.
But these sex ratios pertain to the period when there was a strict law against abortion. One wonders what will happen when abortions have now been legally protected in a country where women are already facing all kinds of violence due to the patriarchal nature of society. There are reports of killing millions of foetuses every year using medical and other means.
Surprisingly, India’s Supreme Court delivered an order to legalise abortion among married and unmarried women when the US Supreme Court in June this year overturned the abortion right in force in the United States for over half a century. After the US Supreme Court order, as many as 13 states in the US have passed laws severely restricting abortion.
According to a report published by the Centre for Reproductive Rights, there are 24 countries where abortion is completely prohibited. They include Andorra, Poland, Vatican City, Liechtenstein and Malta in Europe, El Salvador and Honduras in Central America, Senegal, Congo, Djibouti, Guinea-Bissau, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Egypt in Africa, and the Philippines and Laos in Asia. In El Salvador, abortion is considered “aggravated homicide” and is punishable by up to 8 years in jail and sometimes up to 30-50 years in prison.
Fifty other countries allow abortion, but only when there is a threat to the mother’s life or pregnancy has occurred due to rape, incest, or the foetus has some abnormality. They include Iran, Libya, Indonesia, Venezuela and Nigeria.
There are also severe restrictions on abortions in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Ivory Coast, Libya, Myanmar, Sudan, Iraq, Syria, Uganda, Venezuela and Yemen. However, they allow abortion in cases where the mother’s life is in danger.
Abortion laws are also stringent in Brazil. Abortion is allowed when the mother’s life is at risk.
.
